Delhi Court September 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 1 of about 113 results (0.012 seconds)Hargursharan Singh Major Vs Smt. Amrinder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.By this common judgment, above said six petitions are being disposed of, since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions.2. Brief facts are that, Col. Hargobind Singh Major, respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial court) through his attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur (his wife), filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Prabhjot Singh Major, Balbir Singh Major and Hargursharan Singh Major, on the ground that he is recorded as land holder cultivator having transferrable rights of the cultivated land plot No. 1/5, area 32 bighas, 11 biswa, 12 biswansis, Gatha no.4 area 12 Biswa, Gatha No.5 area 13 Biswa, Gatha No.9/1, area 2 Bighas, Gatha 22/55 area 6 Biswa, 8 Biswansis, Gatha No. 1/67, Area 1 bigha 4 biswa, total numbers 6, total area 37 bighas, 7 biswa, rent 22...
Tag this Judgment!Abdur Razzaq Jowon @ Aslam Vs State.
Court: Delhi
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for modification of the order on sentence dated 20th may, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.2. By the judgment dated 12th May, 2010, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The operative portion of the order on the point of sentence dated 20th May, 2010 records as under:- "Under these facts and circumstances of both the convicted namely Alamgir Hussain Roni S/o Late Jan Mohd. and Abdur Razzaq Jiwon @ Aslam S/o Late Wilayat Hussain are hereby sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone by them during investigation, inquiry and trial of this case with fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default of payment of fine the accused shall under go SI for One year. u/s 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. Both the convicted namely Alamgir Hussain Roni S/o Late Jan Mohd. and Abdur Razzaq Jiwon @ Aslam S/o Late Wilaya...
Tag this Judgment!Shahid Riza @ Raju Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not YES3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest YESORDER:1. The appellant- Shahid Riza @ Raju, vide impugned judgment dated 27th August 2008, has been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and by order dated 2 nd September, 2009 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.2. Learned trial court has held that on 22 nd January, 2007, the appellant had thrown acid on the person of his wife- Shabana Parveen, the complainant at their house, due to which the complainant had suffered 30% to 35% burn injuries.3. The allegations in brief are that on 22nd January, 2007 at about 7.30 pm, the appellant, husband of the complainant, came home and he got entangled in a heated argument wit...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.K.K.Sharma Vs Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ORDER.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Science-Biology) by the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. In response to an advertisement dated 15.1.1987, petitioner applied to U.P.Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad for being selected to the post of Principal in Inter-Colleges in U.P. He forwarded his application to U.P.Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad, through the Deputy Director of Education, Government of N.C.T. Delhi. Vide letter dated 18.4.1991, the petitioner was informed of his being selected to the post of Principal for D.A.V. Inter College, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.2. It was indicated to the petitioner that he would be on probation for a period of one year.3. Since petitioner would have been on probation for a period of one year as t...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Prabhjot Singh and anr. Vs Col. (Retd.) Hargobind Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.By this common judgment, above said six petitions are being disposed of, since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions.2. Brief facts are that, Col. Hargobind Singh Major, respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial court) through his attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur (his wife), filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Prabhjot Singh Major, Balbir Singh Major and Hargursharan Singh Major, on the ground that he is recorded as land holder cultivator having transferrable rights of the cultivated land plot No. 1/5, area 32 bighas, 11 biswa, 12 biswansis, Gatha no.4 area 12 Biswa, Gatha No.5 area 13 Biswa, Gatha No.9/1, area 2 Bighas, Gatha 22/55 area 6 Biswa, 8 Biswansis, Gatha No. 1/67, Area 1 bigha 4 biswa, total numbers 6, total area 37 bighas, 7 biswa, rent 22...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs AmeeruddIn @ AmeerA.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO the Digest?ORDER. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal and seeking condonation of 94 days delay.The respondent had been served, however, no reply to the application has been filed by the respondent.The applicant has contended that on account of many factors e.g time was taken in procuring the certified copy of the judgment and thereafter in preparing the report and filing the appeal, delay was caused. The applicant has detailed as to who all had considered the case before opining filing of petition leading to delay of 94 days. According to the applicant in the facts and circumstances there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the petitioner seeking leave to appeal. The reasons stated in the application constitute sufficient caus...
Tag this Judgment!Splendor Landbase Ltd. Vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of the local news papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ORDER.1 These are 38 writ petitions filed by builders of various properties in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) who have been issued show cause notices and also directions by the Respondent Delhi Pollution Control Committee (`DPCC) for alleged violation of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [hereafter `the Water Act) and Sections 21 and 22 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 [hereafter `the Air Act]. Barring two petitions where the buildings constructed are residential complexes, in each of the other petitions the building constructed is a commercial shopping complex or a shopping mall.1.2 The show cause notices have been issued on the ground that these Petitioners had not, prior to commencing construction, applied to th...
Tag this Judgment!Hargursharan Singh Major Vs Col. Sh. Hargobind Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.By this common judgment, above said six petitions are being disposed of, since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions.2. Brief facts are that, Col. Hargobind Singh Major, respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial court) through his attorney Smt. Parminder Kaur (his wife), filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Prabhjot Singh Major, Balbir Singh Major and Hargursharan Singh Major, on the ground that he is recorded as land holder cultivator having transferrable rights of the cultivated land plot No. 1/5, area 32 bighas, 11 biswa, 12 biswansis, Gatha no.4 area 12 Biswa, Gatha No.5 area 13 Biswa, Gatha No.9/1, area 2 Bighas, Gatha 22/55 area 6 Biswa, 8 Biswansis, Gatha No. 1/67, Area 1 bigha 4 biswa, total numbers 6, total area 37 bighas, 7 biswa, rent 22...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs Neetu
Court: Delhi
ORDER.1. There is a delay of 72 days in filing of the present petition by the State against the order of discharge dated 25th August, 2009. It is pointed out that the delay has occasioned as due to personal reasons the Additional Public Prosecutor could not process the file in his office and file the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. Crl. Rev. P. No.74/20102 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25 th August, 2009 discharging the respondent Ms. Neetu holding inter alia that no case is made out against her and as no specific role is assigned or attributed by her.3 The State had filed charge sheet in FIR No.136/2009 Police Station Gokalpuri under Section 306/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).4 The law as to when charge should be framed has been lucidly laid Page 1 down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samai and Another, ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs Vijay and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?ORDER.This is an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures. Allowed subject to just exception. This is an application by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 30th March, 2010 and 31st March, 2010 convicting and sentencing respondent No.1 under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 4, all the respondents under Section 364-A of Indian Penal Code. The applicant has contended that copies of the orders were received on 5th April, 2010 and thereafter the report was prepared and was sent to different officers to consider the case and to decide to file petition for leave to appeal leading to 51 days delay. The applicant has conte...
Tag this Judgment!